I am sure some would accuse me of being "anti-Catholic" since I hold strong views towards the errors of Catholicism, but as an extension of what I wrote above about being fair, to me, anti-Catholicism is repeating the kind of Jack Chick tracts level material, arguing that celibate priesthood makes people molest kids (when the statistics show otherwise), etc. Actually arguing against Catholic doctrine is not anti-Catholic in an unfair sense (even though some allege it is) but deliberately misrepresenting or furthering questionable or shaky arguments is what is truly anti-Catholic, and I find this spirit in some Protestant converts to Orthodoxy. Of course, I find the reverse among Catholics as well in some cases. We should all strive to be fair in our approaches to one another. I have a good friend who is Tridentine Roman Catholic and obviously we both think the other is schismatic, but we enjoy our friendship and learn a lot from one another.

Addison Hart wrote a Touchstone article about that (and the reverse, i.e. converts to Catholicism who are anti-Orthodox): Convert Provocateurs

Well, it's kind of ironic. I quit reading Frederica's stuff after Facing East because I got tired of all the over-differentiation. It has always seemed to me that on many of the levels that she talked about the differences between where she came from and were she had ended up, I didn't see differences. It still seems to me that when you look at the triad of Anglican, Roman, and Eastern worship (and attendant artistic considerations) it seems to me that there are a lot of ways in which the Anglicans and the East are alike and Rome is the odd one out. She also (to put it bluntly) showed a tendency to burble; I don't know whether that has faded, but back then I found it hard to take.

Back when Al Kimel still had a blog (and before he was repriested) he would occaisionally put out a "you've got to get out of there" post directed at the Episcopalians reading the blog. And he would inevitably opine that either Rome or Constantinople was an acceptable destination. What inevitably would happen is that someone Orthodox (and generally a convert) would jump in and chide him for suggesting that Rome was in any way acceptable. I don't know whether it was some lingering Anglican taint that prompted him, but he always seemed surprised that it happened. It didn't surprise me at all, because I'd been seeing it for years intra-Orthodoxy.

Addison Hart wrote a Touchstone article about that (and the reverse, i.e. converts to Catholicism who are anti-Orthodox): Convert Provocateurs

That very article is one of the two or three on "convertitis" which threw me for a loop some time ago. It showed me why I should stop the anti-Catholicism immediately and start looking for common ground instead of reasons to fight. I especially like this paragraph:

Quote

The convert from Evangelicalism has usually thought long and hard before deciding in favor of Rome or Orthodoxy. He has probably read a good deal, discussed doctrinal concerns with priests and pastors and fellow travelers, weighed theological differences, and experimented with the various devotional and liturgical aspects of the prospective Church. Serious Evangelicals are inclined to investigate such matters rather thoroughly, and they don’t move precipitously. Converts from Evangelicalism also know what it is to be misunderstood by their Evangelical friends, to have relationships severed, even their salvation questioned and character distrusted by former friends if they opt for Catholicism or Orthodoxy. And, lastly, such a convert in search of the “more authentic” must choose between these two great claimants for the honor of being regarded as the original Church.

That sounds very much like me, not moving "precipitously," being misunderstood, trying to decide between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I told my priest last week that it's hard for someone like me to figure out which one to go with.

P.S. That same Touchstone issue also had book reviews of Clark Carlton, Michael Whelton, and Stephen K. Ray which may be of interest: Paths & Polemics

I'll have to print that one out and read it.

Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.

After posting the Touchstone link, I occurred to me that I myself hadn't read the article in awhile, and was probably due for a re-read. What I noticed this time is that at a couple points, Fr. Hart seems to assume agreement with the Catholic idea that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "sister churches" -- a phrase which you Orthodox generally reserve for your fellow Orthodox (EO & OO).

For instance, out of the four examples he gives,

Quote

Two. A Catholic publishing company, specializing in apologetics, proudly advertises a book about the claims of the papacy by stating in a blurb that this book is responsible for having led to the “conversion” of a large number of Orthodox priests to Catholicism.

He here implies (among other things) that the term "conversion" mustn't be used to describe Orthodox becoming Catholic. (I agree, however, with him that the publishing company sounds unjustifiably polemical.) More telling, I think, is his next couple sentences:

Quote

Three. An Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, the son of a famous Protestant thinker and writer, publishes his interview with another famous former Evangelical in the tabloid-style paper that he edits. Though the two are old friends, the one interviewed has become a Catholic. In the course of the interview, the Orthodox editor unsubtly tries to press the Catholic towards acknowledging that perhaps he should go “beyond” the Catholic Church and into Orthodoxy.

I mean, aren't Orthodox supposed to encourage Catholics to "go beyond the Catholic Church and into Orthodoxy" (from the Orthodox point of view, I mean)? Granted of course that there are good and bad ways of doing that; but it seans to me that Fr. Hart is really assuming here that when Catholics say "the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are sisters" that everyone else has to agree.

(Despite the foregoing caveat, I do really like Fr. Hart's article overall.)

Back when Al Kimel still had a blog (and before he was repriested) he would occaisionally put out a "you've got to get out of there" post directed at the Episcopalians reading the blog. And he would inevitably opine that either Rome or Constantinople was an acceptable destination. What inevitably would happen is that someone Orthodox (and generally a convert) would jump in and chide him for suggesting that Rome was in any way acceptable. I don't know whether it was some lingering Anglican taint that prompted him, but he always seemed surprised that it happened. It didn't surprise me at all, because I'd been seeing it for years intra-Orthodoxy.

I remember some of that. (This was the "Pontificator" blog, no?) Anyway, perhaps this is similar, i.e. perhaps Fr. Kimel was assuming that Catholic and Orthodox are "sister churches" and assuming that everyone else thought so too, and thus was a little shocked to find Orthodox who didn't think so.